Claire Fox is now best known to BBC Radio 4 listeners for her regular role as a panellist on discussion show The Moral Maze, but during the 1980s and 1990s she was a leading member of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), having previously been in its Trotskyist rival the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).

The RCP had an especially close connection to violent Irish republicans, and ran a front organisation called the Irish Freedom Movement whose bulletin Irish Freedom was edited by Fiona Fox (Claire Fox’s sister) sometimes using the psudonym Fiona Foster.

Claire Fox’s sister Fiona, editor of pro-IRA magazine Irish Freedom

Immediately after the IRA’s 1993 Warrington bombing that killed 3-year-old Johnathan Ball and 12-year-old Tim Parry, Fox’s Irish Freedom bulletin published an editorial headlined Warrington and After. This sneered at “the ‘peace’ movements whose emergence has been so keenly promoted by the British and Irish media” for “their demonisation of the IRA, their crawling apologies for being born Irish and their promotion of the British state – the most militaristic in all of Western Europe”.

Fox’s organisation proclaimed their first response to Warrington as being “to explain the real cause of the Irish war and target the British authorities as the source of the violence.” In the same edition of Irish Freedom Claire Fox herself, under the alias Claire Foster, denounced media censorship and bias. She condemned “the selective concern to mourn only certain children (those killed by ‘terrorists’).”

This is the woman who now aspires to be the Brexit Party’s MEP for North West England, including Warrington where two of these children were murdered by the IRA monsters consistently idolised by the Fox sisters and their friends!

Johnathan Ball and Tim Parry, victims of the IRA bomb in Warrington, 1993

Nigel Farage has always had a blind spot over Ulster, but his decision to promote Claire Fox as a candidate for the European Parliament is a disgrace. This woman is manifestly unfit for elected office: H&D readers in North West England should vote for anything other than the Brexit Party.

Richard Edmonds – a Directorate member of the National Front, a party now banned from Facebook

The private company that manages the social-media site Facebook, has just announced that the National Front and its chairman, Tony Martin, together with a number of other nationalist spokespersons and nationalist organisations, BNP, etc. have been banned from the social-media platform.

The pretext given by Facebook is that the Nationalists named and their organisations have spread “hatred”, and have proclaimed “a violent and hateful mission.” This is all lies. It has always been a criminal offence to incite violence and for the last forty years, ever since the Race Act, it has been a criminal offence to promote racial hatred. If any of the individuals named were guilty of either offence then they would have been charged by the judicial authorities, which is not the case. And if any of the nationalist organisations, NF, BNP, etc, had been found to promote violence then they would have been closed down as was National Action, But none of the organisations named by Facebook have been closed down by the Authorities.

This action by the private company which owns and manages Facebook, and which has a near monopoly of the social-media, represents a tyranny answerable to nobody. The older ones of us can remember a time when we were told that Britain fought two world wars to guarantee Freedom of Speech. Not any more.

But friends, take heart. This banning is a form of back-handed compliment. Clearly it is recognised that Nationalists and only Nationalists are the true and only opposition to Mass-immigration and to the multi-criminal nightmare-society being forced onto us.

H&D comments:

Apart from the NF and BNP, Facebook have also banned (yet again) former BNP leader Nick Griffin, and his former young friend Paul Golding (now leader of the tiny Britain First group), and Paul’s former girlfriend/deputy leader Jayda Fransen; Paul Ray, a founder member of the a nut-group called Knights Templar International; former fundraiser for the BNP and Britain First Jim Dowson; Jack Renshaw, a former BNP Youth leader, who was linked to the proscribed NS Youth organisation National Action (although how young Jack can get onto Facebook to chat to his young friends from solitary confinement in HMP Belmarsh is not known!) and last but surely not least former BNP member and EDL leader Steven Yaxley-Lennon (AKA Tommy Robinson).

Nick Griffin modelling Knight Templar merchandise – both Griffin and the Knights Templar have now been banned from Facebook, whose policies mirror Griffin’s own attempts to silence racial nationalists more than a decade ago.

All very sad – right? But why on earth should this come as a shock to nationalists? Facebook is well and truly part (and a big part at that) of the liberal, multi-racial liberal establishment, who are our enemies, they are against everything we stand for and hold dear, so why would they give us a platform on THEIR social-media?

Although most nationalists will probably not agree with us now, these bans may be a good thing – in the long term anyway – if they get our young (and not so young) would-be activists away from their bedrooms and their computers, laptops and smart phones, where they spend so much time on social-media, talking to people who all agree with them anyway, and back onto the streets to do some real political work. Work rebuilding the former nationalist strongholds on the council estates of Burnley, Blackburn, Stoke, Sandwell, Essex and many others, which Griffin and co destroyed ten years ago.

One last interesting point regarding Facebook’s statement of the bans on British nationalists – and I quote:“Individuals and organisations who spread hate, or attack or call for the exclusion of others on the basis of who they are, have no place on Facebook. Under our dangerous individuals and organisations policy, we ban those who proclaim a violent or hateful mission or are engaged in acts of hate or violence. The individuals and organisations we have banned today violate this policy, and they will no longer be allowed a presence on Facebook or Instagram. Posts and other content which expresses praise or support for these figures and groups will also be banned. Our work against organised hate is ongoing and we will continue to review individuals, organisations, pages, groups and content against our community standards.”

If this is the case, then why has Facebook not banned the pages of Sinn Fein – the political wing of the terrorist IRA? Or the Irish Republican Socialist Party – the political wing of the terrorist INLA who murdered Tory MP Airey Neave amongst many others; the 32 County Sovereignty Movement – the political wing of the terrorist group Real IRA – and dozens of other Irish Republican/Marxist hate groups?

Members of the Real IRA – whose political front the 32 County Sovereignty Movement is not banned from Facebook

Why indeed, we may well ask. These are real hate groups – groups who hate everything British and English. Groups who hate with a passion our Ulster-Scots cousins and have carried out a murderous campaign against them and us since the late 1960s. These are hate groups who still carry out real acts of violence (as was seen in Londonderry yesterday).

Yet just like with the many hateful Wahhabi Muslim / Jihadist pages that Facebook lets continue without any problem, they refuse to ban any of these Irish Republican terror groups. It makes you think, don’t it.

Matthew Collins is a middle-aged thug from South London who in his youth was briefly associated with the National Front. He has turned this connection into a lifelong career as an ‘anti-fascist expert’, courted by sections of the liberal media because he is probably the only person of working-class origins they have ever encountered, and they are prepared to overlook his former pastime of poisoning fish in a local primary school.

Unfortunately for his employers, Mr Collins – like the Dick Emery character above – has a sad habit of getting things wrong.

His recent article for an anti-fascist website, after an incomprehensible paragraph about the London Forum, makes a series of errors (as well as an inexplicable reference to ‘homophobia’, which might reflect Mr Collins’ sensitivity on this subject, following his close friendship with Ian Anderson thirty years or so ago).

No-one in our circles has accused Stead Steadman of being responsible for the sabotage of Prof. Faurisson’s Shepperton meeting on October 20th. We knew almost instantly who was responsible, partly thanks to security failures by Mr Collins’ employers.

On October 20th Mr Steadman was at the Traditional Britain Group conference (having made this arrangement long before our event was scheduled) – not as Mr Collins asserts in the Netherlands.

A young Matthew Collins (centre) on a National Front paper sale.

Weirdly Mr Collins posts a mocking caption on a photograph of Mr Steadman, describing him as “sad-faced” during the NF’s march to the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday.

Perhaps Mr Collins and his ilk view the centenary of the First World War – a true European Holocaust that left 20 million dead and 21 million wounded – as a cause for merriment. Decent Britons, including Mr Steadman and the NF marchers, are understandably saddened.

Peter Rushton was not a “McKenzie friend” for Alison Chabloz’s court case, he was a defence witness. Ms Chabloz did not have a “McKenzie friend”, she was professionally and ably represented by barrister Adrian Davies, as Mr Collins would know if he consulted prosecution witness Gideon Falter of the “Campaign Against Antisemitism”, who was cross-examined by Mr Davies to considerable effect!

Perhaps guided by wiser heads, Mr Collins cunningly edits his quotation from our article exposing Alison Chabloz as a saboteur. He does this to avoid mentioning the name of ‘Sophie Johnson’, the Chabloz puppet whose role as informant was inadvertently exposed by Hope not Hate themselves. Giving away your sources is not good for ‘anti-fascist’ Shoah business.

Among the first trails of evidence exposing Hope not Hate’s informant were these Twitter posts on the afternoon of the Shepperton event.

It was to be the final high-point of the year: the world-renowned expert, heroic and exact exponent of Historical Revisionism had decided in his ninetieth year to return to his place of birth in order to give his final speech: to sum up before a gathering of friends and supporters his lifetime’s endeavours in the intellectual adventure of the Twentieth Century (now running overdue). Professor Robert Faurisson, born to a Scottish mother and a French father in the outer London suburb of Shepperton, Middlesex in the year 1929, returned there on 20 October to address guests at a pleasant local hostelry; he spoke, as ever, clearly and with focus for an hour and twenty minutes, without notes and holding his audience spell-bound; fluent in both his mother’s language and his father’s, he moved effortlessly from one to the other to make certain points clearer. Our privilege to be there at this historic occasion; every man and woman carefully vetted: friends amongst friends.

And then came the sabotage: a left-wing hate-group had been informed of our meeting and found the venue: midway through, the group contacted the hotel’s management and threatened that a violent mob would come and wreck the meeting (plus harm staff and guests) unless the management pre-empted and closed the meeting down themselves. The management promptly obeyed the “order”, summoning the chairman to the desk and telling him to put an end to the conference at once. When he refused they resorted to “tough” tactics: repeatedly they set off the fire alarms, turned the lights off, brought a loud-speaker “ghetto-blaster” into the conference room and did their very worst by means of this cacophony to wreck the proceedings. Fortunately the Professor had completed what he had to say to us. He died of a heart attack immediately on returning to his French home a day later.

The question is: who sabotaged the meeting and why?

Was the meeting sabotaged from within “the movement”, defining “the movement” very broadly? And again what could the motive be for such a destructive act and deliberate betrayal of a hero, a man approaching the end of his life having returned to the place of his birth to be amongst friends and admirers to give his final talk to the world – the meeting was filmed.

There are names that are going to be recorded here; there have to be.

It is a fact that the singing satirist, Alison Chabloz, was not invited to the Shepperton meeting. Why not? Because Ms. Chabloz had taken it upon herself to condemn repeatedly the organiser of the Shepperton meeting, Peter Rushton, as “an enemy agent and liar.” This shameful abuse of a good man had no justification or foundation in fact; which fact has been repeatedly explained in detail to Ms. Chabloz. Hence she was excluded from the guest list for Professor Faurisson’s final meeting as an unwelcome entity.

Peter Rushton had served as Ms. Chabloz’s Defence witness at her trial at the Westminster Magistrates’ court, but had refused to go along with her campaign of abuse against Lady Michèle Renouf, a dedicated supporter of the right to free historical and scientific research, whom Ms. Chabloz has repeatedly maligned and defamed for the past year. The moment he dissociated himself from Ms. Chabloz’s endeavours to spread lies about Michèle Renouf, Mr Rushton himself became the target of the Chabloz lie machine. On her blog (10th May 2018) Ms. Chabloz had retorted (or threatened?) “it’s as if my detractors want me to sell my story to the enemy”.

Just a week before the Shepperton gathering, Ms. Chabloz sent a series of emails to Prof. Faurisson attempting to pressure him into intervening to allow her presence there. Ms. Chabloz’s tone was so insistent and outrageous that following her email of 16th October the Professor refused to reply any further to her messages. On arriving in Shepperton three days later he complained about being exhausted by Ms. Chabloz’s relentless behaviour. Despite knowing the reasons why she had been excluded from the Shepperton event, Ms Chabloz persisted during the few days leading up to October 20th in lobbying intensively among various naive nationalists, seeking information about an event to which she was not invited.

A second name must also be mentioned here: Sophie Johnson. Sophie Johnson is the name of the middle-aged Hungarian woman who at first regularly attended the hearings of Ms. Chabloz’s case at the Westminster Magistrates’ court. Sophie Johnson claims to be a close friend of Ms. Chabloz: “I am squarely on the side of the unrivalled queen of English revisionism, the brilliant, richly talented, charming Alison Chabloz”. Some weeks before the Shepperton meeting, “Sophie Johnson” (described by Ms. Chabloz as a valued friend) left comments on the Danish activist NS Viking’s video platform, seriously demeaning Professor Robert Faurisson as senile – “an old fool” who had “authorised a vicious attack on Alison Chabloz”. This is another vile lie: the Professor never attacked Ms. Chabloz verbally or in writing; on the contrary he always had kind and encouraging words for her until eventually becoming exasperated – and even then he only complained about her conduct privately. On the day of the Shepperton meeting, a ‘Sophie’ is registered on the twitter account of the left-wing hate-group, ‘Hope not Hate’ as contacting them with information relating to the Shepperton conference. Since (as she now admits) ‘Sophie’ does not have her own Twitter account, Hope not Hate had to use public Twitter posts in an effort to reach her and ask for further information.

Among the first trails of evidence exposing Hope not Hate’s informant were these Twitter posts on the afternoon of the Shepperton event.

Questions: Was it Sophie Johnson, or somebody in the name of Sophie Johnson who betrayed our Shepperton event? And why in all this time, has Ms. Chabloz never condemned this sabotage of Prof. Faurisson’s final appearance? And why has Ms. Chabloz never rebuked and corrected “Sophie Johnson” (if that be the correct name) for insulting the greatest Revisionist hero of our time, as “an old fool”? And why did Ms. Chabloz not dissociate herself at the time from a person having made such a disgusting comment?

Finally one has to say (after compiling a detailed timeline of these events, with the benefit of having read Alison Chabloz’s private emails to Prof. Faurisson and a great deal of other relevant correspondence): by the balance of probabilities it is the person calling herself “Sophie Johnson” who sabotaged our meeting and betrayed it to the enemy; and did so to please the individual, whom Sophie Johnson describes as the “unrivalled queen of English revisionism, the brilliant, richly talented, charming Alison Chabloz”. By the balance of probabilities, one is forced to the conclusion that Alison Chabloz, motivated by spite, arranged for the meeting from which she was excluded to be sabotaged.

By this disgraceful act, Ms. Chabloz damns herself as a traitor and saboteur. We are aware of the fact that several good nationalists have passed information to Ms. Chabloz which she has later misused – indeed we know precisely who informed her and when about the Shepperton event, enabling her sabotage – but we have no doubt that these folk were simply acting naively and in good faith. However from this point on, those who collaborate with Ms. Chabloz will be regarded as giving aid to an enemy informant.

The above statement is issued by Richard Edmonds, Michèle Renouf, and Peter Rushton, with the approval of Guillaume Nichols, Joe Fallisi and Fred Leuchter

We have no intention of getting drawn into a ‘debate’ with the traitor and saboteur Alison Chabloz, save only to note that in her own response to the above revelations she damns herself further by dismissing Prof. Faurisson as Michèle Renouf’s “principle [sic] PR agent”.

Having washed our hands of Ms. Chabloz, the January edition of H&D will turn to more serious matters. The campaign for historical truth proceeds, as we lesser men are raised up on the giant shoulders of Faurissonian exactitude. The intellectual adventure continues.

JRCT has given substantial grants over the years to the ‘anti-fascist’ organisations Searchlight and Hope not Hate. The latest controversy involves two sets of donations in Northern Ireland. Since 2014 the Trust has made regular grants to Teach na Failte, founded by the Irish Republican Socialist Party, political wing of the brutal terror gang Irish National Liberation Army (INLA). Teach na Failte even shares an office with the IRSP in Falls Road, Belfast. IRSP has close connections to the violent anti-fascist group ‘Red Action’, scrutinised last weekend by the Sunday Times.

In 2014 the Rowntree Trust gave Teach na Failte £149,915 followed by a further grant of £125,000 in 2017.

Other controversial donations by the Rowntree Trust involve a housing charity Conflict Resolution Services Ireland, whose Belfast offices have twice been raided by police investigating ties to the dissident republican terrorist group Oglaigh na hEireann, a splinter group from the Real IRA which was itself a breakaway from the IRA.

Gerry Ruddy, a leading official of the IRSP, political front for the INLA who murdered Airey Neave and many others, is chairman of the CRSI ‘charity’ trustees.

Earlier investigations of CRSI have suggested that (unlike Teach na Failte) it is not a straightforward front for hardline republicans linked to terrorism. CRSI’s situation is more complicated. There are allegations that it has worked to move people up the queue for local authority housing in Ulster in a racket helping to manufacture supposed ‘threats’ from paramilitaries (both republican and loyalist), and that not only the various IRA splinter groups but also drug dealers shamefully using the banner of the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) have been involved in this corrupt abuse of publicly funded housing.

According to the Belfast Telegraph, official investigations involve not only CRSI but a government-funded service called ‘Base 2’ which ostensibly helps families to be rehoused if they have been threatened. Working at the CRSI’s Belfast office is Sean O’Reilly, once given a 30-month jail sentence for his role in a botched ‘punishment shooting’ on behalf of a republican terror gang.

Since the days of Cable Street in 1936 mainstream British journalists and historians have lionised militant (i.e. violent) ‘anti-fascism’. The true story of Cable Street was that an alliance of Jews and Communists fought police on the streets of East London to disrupt a lawful march by Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. The fighting was not between ‘anti-fascists’ and the BUF, but between the Judeo-Marxist alliance and the London police.

Half a century after Cable Street the increasingly terrorist tactics of ‘Anti-Fascist Action’ were largely ignored by the media, who preferred to conjure fables of supposed ‘neo-nazi’ terrorism by largely mythical groups such as ‘Combat 18’. The real C18 (as H&D knows only too well) contained several enthusiastic though misguided patriots, but was run for the benefit of the British secret state.

And on into the 21st century the new ‘Antifa’ street gangs (admittedly immature and far less effective than their 1990s counterparts) are given a free pass by journalists on both sides of the Atlantic, who prefer to focus on a new generation of mythical ‘far right terrorists’.

Red Action publications made no secret of the fact that they often met at Corbyn’s constituency office in Islington, and Corbyn himself (as Gilligan reports) addressed at least three Red Action meetings between 1985 and 1992, acting as an official of the Red Action dominated group Anti-Fascist Action.

A leader of AFA / Red Action – Patrick Hayes – and another member, Jan Taylor, were later given 30-year jail sentences for IRA terrorism: they had bombed the Harrods store in Central London and planned at least two other abortive bombings in the heart of the capital, targeting British civilians. Their ‘anti-fascist’ colleague Liam Heffernan was given 23 years for stealing explosives on behalf of an even more militant Irish terrorist group, the INLA, which for several years had particularly close ties to AFA / Red Action. (In 2013 The Times and other newspapers scurried to catch up with our exposé of INLA and ‘anti-fascist’ connections to a bizarre Marxist cult whose leaders were convicted for keeping women as ‘slaves’.)

A senior police officer told Gilligan that Corbyn’s connections to the group were investigated, and that although insufficient evidence was found for prosecution: “He knew they [Red Action] were open supporters of terrorism and he supported them. We had no evidence that he knew they were actually involved in terrorism themselves.”

All this dates back more than 25 years – and the British state itself is now in alliance with the very same IRA godfathers once linked to Corbyn! So why are veteran police officers and eminent journalists now dusting down files on cases and stories they failed to pursue in the 1990s?

The answer of course is that in Orwellian fashion there are ‘good’ anti-fascist terrorists and ‘bad’ ones. Broadly speaking, Jewish militancy on the streets of London is to be welcomed by the Murdoch press and their tame policemen. Irish republican violence on those same streets (while now mostly ignored as these “ex”-terrorists are fêted by government ministers and even royalty), remains a useful instrument for discrediting the real enemy.

And of course for British politicians and newspaper owners, the ‘real enemy’ means the enemy of their paymasters.

Make no mistake – Jeremy Corbyn is an enemy of British nationalists and a dedicated multiracialist. His arrival in Downing Street would be bad news for H&D readers. But it would be even worse news for the State of Israel and its proxies in London. Hence militant ‘anti-fascists’, having been foot-soldiers in the war against the ‘far right’, are now cast aside as collateral damage, just a few more insignificant casualties as the Zionist lobby concentrates its fire on the Labour leader.

Andrew Gilligan, author of yesterday’s Sunday Times exposé of ‘anti-fascist’ terrorism, seen (above right) accepting an award from former Prime Minister David Cameron

Jewish demonstrators at the July 4th 2015 event which eventually led to criminal charges – not against this mob – but against British Army veteran Jez Turner

In July 2015 a howling mob of ultra-leftwing Jews confronted a British Army veteran on Whitehall. So that no one could mistake their political outlook – and the tradition of brutal terror which they proudly claim to follow – this mob displayed the banners above: one reading “F**k Racism – Daloy Politzei” and another carrying the number “43” alongside the slogan “Jewish Anti-Fascist Action”.

Gentile readers might not know the full meaning of these banners, but the demonstrators knew perfectly well. The slogan “Daloy Politzei”, waved with impunity in the faces of Metropolitan Police officers that day, means “F**k the Police”.

In fact it is a far more offensive slogan even than these words alone might imply. The slogan “Daloy Politzei” is a combination of Yiddish and Russian. It is a slogan that was deployed by murderous Jewish revolutionaries in early 20th century Russia, who proved that they were not employing idle threats when they led the Bolshevik overthrow of Tsar Nicholas II in 1917.

The song goes on to say: “let’s bury little Nikolai along with his mother”. In fact a Jewish-controlled gang did go on to bury Tsar Nicholas, his wife and children in July 1918 in Yekaterinburg. The children’s faces were smashed in with rifle butts and the bodies dissolved with sulphuric acid. The man in charge of the executioners, Jewish Bolshevik Yakov Sverdlov, was honoured by his comrades who renamed the city of Yekaterinburg as Sverdlovsk.

Police in London almost a century later did nothing to restrain Sverdlov’s fellow Marxists, co-racialists and co-religionists as they spewed their bile in the faces of Britons including Jez Turner, who was speaking that day at a protest against an exclusive Jewish police force known as Shomrim.

There was a time when London policemen would have known what the second ‘anti-fascist’ banner meant by displaying the number “43”. This is a reference to the ’43 Group’, a gang of Jewish criminals backed by notorious East End gangster Jack Spot who sought to terrorise the followers of Sir Oswald Mosley and other British nationalists at the dawn of the multiracial transformation of our country during the late 1940s.

East End villain Jack Spot, backer of the notorious ’43 Group’ celebrated on the ‘anti-fascist’ banner above.

The 43 Group’s terror tactics were not confined to nationalist political activists. This Zionist gang was closely tied to the murderous terrorists of the Irgun, engaged in a campaign of bombings and assassinations against British soldiers and police as well as Arab civilians in what was then the British-administered Mandate of Palestine. One 43 Group activist David Landman (who later emigrated to Israel) was actively engaged with his sister and father in terrorist plots on British soil, including an attempt to assassinate Gen. Sir Evelyn Barker, former Commander of British Forces in Palestine.

As H&D assistant editor Peter Rushton pointed out in his speech on the day, the ‘anti-fascist’ mob represented the combined forces of anti-British terrorism: some were fans of the IRA (including the Harrods bombers who were leading activists in the London branch of Anti-Fascist Action), while others were fans of Irgun and the Stern Gang, whose bombers had tried to blow up Whitehall itself seventy years ago.

Yet these terrorist fan clubs went unmolested by the police.

After extensive pressure from Zionist lobby groups (the Community Security Trust and the Campaign Against Antisemitism) the police instead brought charges against Mr Turner whose speech (in contrast to the foul-mouthed and violent language of his adversaries) had contained no obscenities.

At the very start of the trial Judge Tomlinson refused the application of Jez Turner’s barrister Adrian Davies to ask jury members whether they were members of any of the three Jewish groups involved in the proceedings. Even this simple method of seeking to ensure a fair trial was rejected.

The judge went on to make repeated sarcastic interventions during Jez Turner’s testimony, which served no legal purpose and at best had the effect of distracting the defendant in the witness box, while at worst prejudicing the jury.

Betty Knout (alias Lazarus), the Zionist terrorist who planted a bomb on Whitehall just yards from the site of the demonstration

Jez Turner was being cross-examined by prosecuting counsel on lines from his speech three years ago. A large part of this speech referred to historical questions, and had the prosecution wished to do so they could have brought ‘expert witness’ testimony from historically qualified witnesses to dispute the defendant’s interpretations.

Of course had they done so, the defence could also then have summoned their own expert witnesses, and the jury could have heard various aspects of Jewish history dispassionately debated.

But the prosecution chose not to bring any such expert testimony. Instead the judge himself (a law graduate who claims no specific historical expertise and certainly did not demonstrate any) made his own crude interventions on historical topics. At one point he disputed Jez Turner’s contention that the Soviet Union had invaded Poland from the East in 1939 while Germany invaded from the West – the learned judge seemed to believe that the Soviets had only sought to invade Poland following Germany’s defeat in 1945!

Yakov Sverdlov, Jewish Bolshevik murderer of the Russian Royal Family

Even worse, Judge Tomlinson interrupted Jez Turner on what might be thought the incontrovertible point that Jews dominated the leadership of the Bolshevik Revolution, having a grossly disproportionate role in the leadership of the Soviet murder squads of the KGB and equivalent organisations thereafter.

In a blatant attempt to sway the jury, Judge Tomlinson questioned the defendant about Viktor Abakumov, asking rhetorically “was Abakumov a Jew”, and suggesting that this demolished the notion that the Soviet terror state was disproportionately Jewish.

Confronted with this random name out of the blue, Jez Turner was not equipped to enter a detailed historical debate with the judge from the witness box: nor should he have been expected to do so. The judge’s interrogation of the witness was gravely improper – had the court wished to debate the racial composition of the Soviet bureaucracy (and specifically the KGB) the proper course was to introduce expert witnesses.

Judge Tomlinson implied that Abakumov was some sort of number two to Stalin in the postwar USSR. In fact he was a (gentile) thug brought in by Stalin partly to counterbalance the power of KGB chief Beria. It is certainly true that Stalin purged a large number of Jews (in various stages) from the leadership of the KGB and the Communist Party, and Abakumov was a leading apparatchik carrying out the postwar purges, but in the overall context of Soviet Communism he is hardly a major figure.

Still less does the presence of Abakumov and his ilk carrying out anti-Jewish purges disprove the defendant’s original argument that the Bolshevik Revolution and the Soviet state were disproportionately Jewish. In fact the very presence of such vast numbers of Jews to be purged from leading positions rather proves Jez Turner’s argument!

Where did Judge Tomlinson get his obsession with Viktor Abakumov? H&D suspects that the learned judge has recently read a widely-reviewed book on SMERSH, the murderous counter-intelligence force once headed by Abakumov: but this hardly makes Judge Tomlinson suitable to act as an expert witness in his own court!

In Part II of our analysis of the judicial travesty in Southwark, later this week, we shall further examine Judge Tomlinson’s actions and background.

H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton spoke at that same demonstration (from 23:40 to 30:08 on the video below).

The deafening noise made by Jewish and ‘anti-fascist’ demonstrators makes it difficult to hear the video, so we here attach a transcript of our assistant editor’s speech:

I’d like to thank the various forces that have proved the point today about the disgraceful state of double standards that exists in this country.

First of all, the courageous organisers of this event, principally Eddie Stampton over there, who stood up to be counted, who stood up determined to expose the double standards of law and order in this country.

Second, the British Government just the other side of the street there, who similarly proved the point by at the last minute insisting that this demonstration had to be moved from Golders Green down here to Whitehall. They helped to prove again the point about double standards.

And thirdly I’d like to thank the motley crew of ‘anti-fascist’ opponents today because they’ve also turned up to help make Eddie’s point for him. Over here today we see the united forces of anti-British terrorism. We see the friends of the Zionist bombers of the King David Hotel, standing side by side with the friends of the IRA bombers of Harrods, who were of course – as every policeman here knows – the bombers of Harrods were senior activists in the London branch of Anti-Fascist Action.

The united forces of anti-British terror are here today, and they are backed by the World Zionist supporters of the world’s number one terrorist state, the world’s number one gangster state, just over there, the other side of the barrier, proudly flying the flag of terrorism and gangsterism. The flag of a state which owes its existence to terror, and where better, where better than in Whitehall for us to expose that ultimate double standard – that double standard the consequences of which we live with every day of our lives when we face different terrorist groups.

Because the reason why terrorist groups anywhere in the world do what they do, is because they think it works – and why do they think it works? Because the last organisation in the world to proudly call itself ‘terrorist’ – the Stern Gang – helped to form the State of Israel whose flag we see over there today.

That organisation – the Stern Gang – here in Whitehall, you just walk up the street there on your way back from this demonstration, whichever side of the barrier you’re on today, or whether you’re here with the police today, you can see what is now the Scotland Office. What was in 1947 the Colonial Office. The Stern Gang planted an enormous bomb in the lavatories of the Colonial Office in March 1947. It failed to go off due to a faulty timer.

And while we are on about double standards, many of the people here today have been accused of promoting ‘racism’ and ’neo-nazism’. Well, in that same Spring of 1947, just a little bit further up the road there, the organisation that you support [indicating Jewish demonstrators nearby], the organisation that the people with the Israeli flag support, the organisation whose leader became the Prime Minister of Israel, planted a bomb in the British Colonial Club, just off Trafalgar Square, next to St Martin in the Fields.

And you know – we are the ‘nazi scum’ of course, aren’t we [responding to chants from demonstrators opposite], but that British Colonial Club was for non-White servicemen who hadn’t been demobbed. There they were, non-White British servicemen, quietly playing billiards, in their club off Trafalgar Square in March of 1947, and the Stern Gang’s bomb ripped the building apart!

Not a bomb planted by the so-called ‘racists’ on this side of the barrier; a bomb planted by the Stern Gang, whose leader became the Prime Minister of Israel!

If you want to find a ‘racist’ terrorist, if you want to find a bomber who planted a bomb that blew up a non-White servicemen’s club in this country – you can find him! He’s still alive today. He’s in Paris to this day. Prof. Robert Misrahi. Having planted that bomb he went back and instead of being prosecuted he got a promotion from your Zionist friends, and he ended up Professor of Ethical Philosophy at the Sorbonne.

So that’s the double standard in effect that’s seen our demonstration banned in Golders Green and relocated here today; the double standard that sees the supporters of Zionist terror and their useful idiots all screaming and shouting on the other side of the barrier there; and the double standard that allows a bomber whose bomb rips apart a club for non-White servicemen not to be treated as a ‘racist’ terrorist but to be respected, promoted, to be a friend of Israeli Prime Ministers, and to be a Professor at the Sorbonne in Paris.

That’s the double standard: what could better prove it than what we’ve seen here today. The double standard in 1947 is the same double standard in 2015. Thank you very much to everyone who has turned up here today to expose this double standard, and thank you very much to the police for making today such a trouble-free event. Thanks to all concerned.

During the 1980s and 1990s, the Noonan family were the spearhead of an ‘anti-fascist’ reign of terror in Lancashire’s twin cities Manchester and Salford. Their power crumbled after 1999, when Noonan associate Paddy Logan (who had taken part in the gang’s brutal attack on Ulster Loyalists in the Rusholme district) was shot dead at his home in Withington.

Dominic Noonan’s brother Dessie (stabbed to death in 2005) was one of Britain’s most feared gangland assassins, responsible for more than twenty gangland murders, and was used by militant anti-fascists to threaten political opponents including BNP organisers. Believing that he was protected by his family’s notorious reputation for violence, Dominic Noonan thought none of his young victims would ever dare to testify against him.

﻿

Passing sentence today, Judge Martin Rudland told Noonan that following his first paedophile offence against a boy from a children’s home in 1981 he had “gained more confidence as your criminal lifestyle developed and your reputation and influence over others in that regard began to grow. It was in those circumstances that you abused (your second victim), aged 16 or 17, who you simply picked off the street for sexual gratification to use and discard at will and giving him a beating on the way. By then you were in your late 20s with your confidence gathering pace and not in the least fearful of brazen offending.”

“You were clearly determined to seek sexual gratification where and when you wanted it, and as a means of pursuing that end, and other objectives no doubt, you surrounded yourself with teenage boys. You gave them food, drink, drugs, occasional employment, and a sense of being part of your entourage.

“Inevitably the type of teenager who was drawn to such a life was either the criminally inclined or the vulnerable in search of stability, attention and perhaps some excitement.

“In their eyes you seemed to provide all three. The true picture is however, one of manipulation and grooming behaviour to provide you with an easy avenue for sexual misconduct.”

The truth is that organised ‘anti-fascist’ and Irish Republican terror gangs benefited from their association with Noonan and his criminal family, and undoubtedly helped draw young victims into his entourage. H&D has reported on aspects of the Noonan scandal many times over the past fifteen years. We salute the courage of those honest police officers and brave witnesses who helped bring this monster to justice.

Fallen gang boss and ‘anti-fascist’ Dominic Noonan in his latest police mugshot, as he prepared to face trial for monstrous paedophile crimes.